The New York Times' Maureen Dowd has published bits of "e-males" (isn't she clever?) from men who, unlike most of Dowd's friends, are not intimidated by successful intelligent women. It's probably the best column published under her byline in a long time, mainly because she writes so little of it.

Wright Salisbury's missive brought a smile:

[I]n praise of brainy women: Shortly after we were married, my wife tearfully confessed that her I.Q., at 178, was 45 points higher than mine, had been salutatorian of her college class, and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

I was shocked, but divorce was out of the question. It has been terrible to live with, but there have been compensations: 1) Our children are a lot smarter . . . 2) She remembers people's names, places we have visited, and learns foreign languages the way I catch colds.

Men, don't fear that cute little genius you have your eye on.

Men and women are different in many ways, but women can be just as shallow as men when it comes to relationships, as Dowd's letter-writers point out.

"They want to find somebody who is as much or MORE: good looking, socially skilled and well-off," writes Mike "not Mormon" Dropkin of Sugarhouse, Utah. "What do successful men want? Typically, a good-looking women who is kind."

Steven Greenfield agrees: "I find that most successful women have little respect for a man who does not out-earn them. I am all too frequently made to feel as though I am the sum total of my r�sum�, which is embarrassingly slim in their eyes."

I haven't necessarily encountered this feminist elitism, but it certainly doesn't surprise me.

Relationships require time, effort and dedication. Many of these women (and many men) may find themselves successful and unmarried in their 40s because they failed to invest their time or effort in other people. The single-minded pursuit of financial gain and success can affect personal relationships. If you haven't figured that out -- you've got bigger issues.